>>>>> "CS" == Christopher Stone <chris.stone@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
CS> I missed this week's FESCo meeting so I don't know if it was
CS> brought up, but there should be a FESCo descision on "best
CS> practices" when the packager is in doubt.
Actually this is no longer in the FESCo bailiwick. The packaging
committee is now deciding these things for both Core and Extras, and
you're essentially reaching the committee by posting here.
So let me see if I can correctly summarize the open questions:
1) How accurately does the license need to be described in the
License: tag?
a) Is it sufficient to specify a license that is "close" to the
actual license?
b) Are tags like "BSDish" and "GPL-like" acceptable? (rpmlint
doesn't warn when it sees them.)
c) Is it necessary to specify the version of a particular license?
If so, what is the proper way to do this?
2) When does the license text need to be included in the package?
Current behavior is "include if in the upstream tarball, otherwise
don't include".
a) Is this sufficient?
b) If not, what situations would require the license when it's not in
the tarball?
CS> Personally I want as little liability on me as a packager as
CS> possible.
Note that this would essentially require no interpretation of the
license whatever.
- J<
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
